I've been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we've written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I'm grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Both previously and presently, I have been employed by and/or done work for various organizations that also have views on Free, Libre, and Open Source Software. As should be blatantly obvious, this is my website, not theirs, so please do not assume views and opinions here belong to any such organization. Since I do co-own ebb.org with my wife, it may not be so obvious that these aren't her views and opinions, either.